The Old Three And Two

 

You will recognize the issue.

During 2017 Mary deNourie worked at a retail store. She had wages of $11,516 and social security of $7,559. She and her husband did not file an income tax return because the withholding was enough to cover any tax due.

In 2021 the IRS contacted them about not filing a 2017 tax return. The IRS was preparing a substitute for return showing the wages and social security as well as partnership income of $25,065. When you throw the partnership into the mix, they now owed tax of $4,192, plus interest and penalties.

What partnership income, they exclaimed? The partnership had not paid them anything.

COMMENT: That is not the way partnerships are taxed. For example, a 10% partner will generally be taxable on 10% of the partnership’s taxable income. This amount is reported to a partner on Schedule K-1, a copy of which goes to the IRS. Whether the partner has received cash to go with that K-1 does not matter to the IRS. That is a matter for the partner to take up with the partnership.

I then see a court order in April 2023 releasing the husband from the matter.

That is unusual. What happened?

The IRS had not sent out a Notice of Deficiency – the 90-day letter – to the husband. This is a no-no. The IRS also has rules and procedures, and each spouse (on a joint return) must receive his or her own Notice of Deficiency. Mary received hers. He did not.

Now Mary was on her own.

Coincidentally, the partnership income went away.

COMMENT: It appears the husband owned the partnership.

We are back to Mary’s W-2 and social security.

Mary and the IRS worked on an agreement. There was no tax due for 2017. In fact, there was an overpayment of $284.

Mary wanted the $284.

Can’t blame her.

The IRS said no.

Mary in response refused to sign the agreement.

In March 2024 Mary filed a tax return for 2017. She wanted her refund.

What do you think: will Mary receive that refund?

Here is the relevant law:

Sec. 6511 Limitations on credit or refund

Period of limitation on filing claim. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.

Right or wrong, there is a limit on how long you can wait to file for a refund. If you file a return, for example, you have three years to amend for a refund.

There is a riff on the above rule if you file now and pay later. The Code will then permit a refund until 2 years after the tax is paid if that date is after the three-year date.

Notice what this three-and-two have in common:

          You filed a return.

If you do not file a return, the rule gets grimmer:

          You have until 2 years after the tax was paid.

If you file, you start with three and might move to two – and only if two allows for more time.

Don’t file and you have two – period. You have no choice.

Let’s see what Mary did:

·       Mary’s 2017 tax return was due April 15, 2018.

·       She did not file, so the mandatory two-year rule applies.

·       There is still hope, though. If she files within three years – by April 15, 2021 – she can flip the mandatory two back to the normal three-and-two.

o   She filed 2017 in March 2024.

Nope. Too late all around.

Mary had no tax due for 2017, but she likewise had no refund for 2017.

My thought? If you have withholding, consider filing even if there is no tax due. Why? Because withholding represents tax paid, and not filing triggers the mandatory two-year rule. By filing you move to the three-and-two rule. It may save you; it may not, but it provides more breathing room than the alternative.

Today we discussed Mary deNourie v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, docket 18182-22.

Tomato Supplier Must Change Accounting Method

 

Let’s talk about when we can deduct something on a tax return.

We are talking about accrual accounting. Cash accounting would be easy: you are not allowed to deduct something until it is paid.

Not surprisingly, there is a Code section for this.

Code § 461 - General rule for taxable year of deduction

            (h) Certain liabilities not incurred before economic performance

(1) In general

 

For purposes of this title, in determining whether an amount has been incurred with respect to any item during any taxable year, the all events test shall not be treated as met any earlier than when economic performance with respect to such item occurs.

We see two key terms: the all-events test and economic performance.

First, a potential deduction must pass the all-events test before it can even think of landing on a tax return.

Second, that potential deduction must next pass a second test – economic performance – before it is allowed as a deduction.

Let’s spend time today on the first hurdle: the all-events test.     

Back to the Code:

            All events test

For purposes of this subsection, the all events test is met with respect to any item if all events have occurred which determine the fact of liability and the amount of such liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

There are two prongs there:

·       The fact  

·       The amount  

Much of the literature in this area concerns economic performance, which is the next test after the above two are met. One might presume that the all- events test is a low bar, and that an expense accrued under GAAP for financial reporting purposes would almost automatically meet the all-events test for tax reporting purposes.

You would be surprised how often this is not true, and tax accounting will not give the same answer as financial reporting accounting.

I was reviewing a case this past week. It comes from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit which includes California.

Morning Star Packing Company and Liberty Packing Company appealed their Tax Court decisions. Both are based in California, and – combined – they supply approximately 40% of the U.S.’s tomato pastes and diced tomatoes. 

Tomato season in California lasts approximately 100 days – from June to September. During this period Morning Star runs its production facilities at maximum capacity 24 hours a day. When the season ends in October, the equipment has been traumatized and needs extensive reconditioning before going into production again. For assorted reasons, Morning Star normally waits near the start of the following season before doing such reconditioning.

Let’s assign dates so we can understand the tax issue.

Say that the frenetic 100-day production activity occurred in 2022.

Morning Star will recondition the equipment before the start of the next production cycle – that is, in 2023.

Reconditioning costs are substantial and can be north of $20 million.

Morning Star deducts the anticipated reconditioning costs to be incurred in 2023 on its 2022 tax return.

What do you think? Can Morning Star clear the all-events test?

Here is the taxpayer:

·       Our customers generally require that the tomato products meet certain quality and sanitary standards. Many customers require independent testing. The facilities are also inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the California Department of Public Health.

·       An obligation to refurbish the equipment is strongly implied by the need to meet governmental regulations.

o   Failure to meet such standards could result in the company being required to pay farmers for spoiled tomatoes and/or paying customers for failure to provide tomato products. Any such payments could be catastrophic to the company.

·       The company has credit agreements with several banks. These agreements include numerous covenants such as the following:

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall (i) maintain all material licenses, Permits, governmental approvals, rights, privileges, and franchises reasonably necessary for the conduct of its business ….

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall … conduct its business activities in compliance with all laws and material contractual obligations applicable ….

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall …keep all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted….

·       An obligation to refurbish the equipment can be inferred from the “all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order” covenant.

Here is the IRS:

·       The credit agreements do not specifically fix the company’s obligation.

o   The agreements do not specify which laws or regulations must be complied with.

o   The agreements do not specify which property must be kept in good working order.

o   The term “wear and tear” refers to ordinary use; “ordinary” wear and tear is excepted; the agreements therefore do not require the company to refurbish its equipment because it would meet the “ordinary wear and tear” exception.

·       The customer agreements are production specific and do not directly require reconditioning costs. Granted, failure to perform could be financially catastrophic, which implies a high degree of certainty that reconditioning will occur, but a high likelihood is different from a certain obligation.

Both the Tax Court and the Appeals Court agreed with the IRS.

I am divided.

I believe that the IRS is technically correct. There was no explicit obligation, requirement, or guarantee that Morning Star will recondition its facilities before the start of the next season’s production run. I however consider that a false flag. Economic and business reality assures me that it will recondition, because a failure to do so could invite business and financial ruin. Would the USDA or FDA even allow them to start next year’s production run without reconditioning?

Decisions like this unfortunately pull tax practice closer to a wizard’s incantation. The practitioner must be certain to include the magic words, intonating appropriately at proper moments to evoke the intervention of unseen eldritch forces. Fail to include, intone, or evoke correctly and lose the spell – or tax deduction.

Here is Judge Bumatay’s dissent:

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has a shocking view of taxpayer’s money. According to the IRS’ counsel at oral argument, any disagreement on when a tax payment is due constitutes ‘an interest-free loan from the government' to the taxpayer. That’s completely wrong. Simply, the income of everyday Americans is not government property.”

In fact, Morning Star has used this method since its founding. And the IRS had endorsed this practice – it audited Morning Star in the early 1990s and concluded that this practice was acceptable. But now, after Morning Star’s deductions for years, the IRS changes its mind and demands that Morning Star alter how it recognizes the reconditioning costs.”

Morning Star’s liability was fixed at the end of each season’s production run.”

… the law does not require the taxpayer to prove the fixed obligation to a metaphysical certitude.”

You go, Judge B.

I am not impressed that the IRS previously looked at the accounting method, found it acceptable and now wants to change its mind. That is not the way it works in professional practice, folks. The CPA cannot be reviewing every possible accounting issue de novo every year.

And I am less than impressed that an IRS representative argued that the change was necessary because the government was assuming the risk that the company would not be able to pay its taxes should it encounter a bad harvest or other financial malady.

Seriously? The owners of Morning Star face multiple business dangers every day and the government is “assuming the risk?” We cannot DOGE these people and bureaucracies soon enough.

But then again, Morning Star could have boosted its case with a minor change to its credit agreements. How? Include annual reconditioning as a requirement to retain its credit facility. If Morning Star is going to recondition anyway, making it a requirement might be the magical incantation we need.

Our case this time is Morning Star Packing Company L.P., 9^th Circuit, No. 21-71191.

Offer In Compromise And Reasonable Collection Potential

Command Central is working two Collections cases with the same revenue officer.

For the most part, I am staying out of it. There is a young(er) tax guy here, and we are exposing him to the ins-and-outs of IRS procedure. This is a subject not taught in school, and training today is much like it was when I went through: a mentor and mouth-to-ear. Friday morning we spent quite a bit of time trying to determine whether someone’s tax year was still “open,” as it would make a substantial difference in how we approach the situation.

COMMENT: This is the statute of limitations. The IRS has three years to assess your return and then ten years to collect. Hypothetically one could get to thirteen years, but that would require the IRS to run the three-year gamut before assessing and then the ten-year stretch to collect. I do not believe I have ever seen the IRS do that. No, of greater likelihood is that the taxpayer has done things to suspend the statute (called “tolling”), things such as requesting payment plans or submitting offers in compromise. Do this repetitively and you might be surprised at how long ten years can stretch. 

Personally, I suspect one of these two clients is dead in the water.

Why?

Let’s like at some inside baseball for an offer in compromise.

Collections looks at something called reasonable collection potential (RCP). As a rule of thumb, figure that the IRS is looking at a bigger number than you are. RCP has two components:

(1)  Net realizable equity in your assets

The classic example is a paid-off house.

To be fair, the IRS does spot you some room. It will use 80% (rather than 100%) of the house’s market value, for example, and then allow you to reduce that by any mortgage. Yes, the IRS is pushing you to refinance the house and take out the equity. It is not unavoidable, however. The push could be mitigated (if not stopped altogether) in special circumstances.

(2)  Future remaining income

This is a multiple of your monthly disposable income.

Monthly disposable income (MDI) is the net of

·      Monthly income less

·      Allowable living expenses (ALE)

Trust me, what you consider your ALE is almost certain to be significantly higher than what the IRS considers your ALE. There are tables, for example, of selected expense categories such as allowable vehicle ownership and operating costs. The IRS is not going to spot you $1,000/month to drive a luxury SUV when calculating your ALE. You may owe it, but they are not going to allow it. Yep, the math has to give, and when it gives, it is going to fall on you.

MDI is then multiplied by either 12 or 24, depending on which flavor offer in compromise you are requesting.

The vanilla flavor, for example, requires you to submit a 20% deposit with the offer request.

That is a problem if you are broke.

Then you have to pay the remaining 80% payments over five months.

 But – you say – that 80% includes twelve months of income. How am I to generate twelve months of income in five months?

I get it, but I did not write the rules.

Let’s look at a recent case. We will then have a quiz question.

Mr. D owed taxes for 2009 through 2011, 2013 through 2017, and payroll tax trust fund penalties for quarter 2, 2014 and quarters 3 and 4, 2015. These totaled a bit under $410 grand.

Shheeessshhh.

Mrs. D owed taxes for 2011 and 2013 through 2017.

OK. Those were joint income tax liabilities and would already have been included in Mr. D’s $410 grand.

They filed and owed with their 2018 return.

In March 2020 they requested a Collection Due Process Hearing.

They filed and owed with their 2019 return.

In July 2020 they offered $45,966 to settle their personal taxes for 2009 through 2011 and 2013 through 2019. Total personal tax was about $437 grand.

Now began the Collections dance.

Their offer was submitted to the specialized unit that works with offers. The unit wanted more information. The D’s had disclosed, for example, that they had retirement accounts.

The IRS asked: could you send us paperwork on the retirement accounts? 

The D’s send information for her IRA but not for his 401(k).

COMMENT: It almost never works to play this game.

The IRS calculated RCP based on their best available information.

Let’s look at just one facet: the house.

The D’s said the house was worth $376,600 on their original application. It had a mortgage of $310,877.

The IRS said that the house was worth $680,816.

COMMENT: Really? Did they think the IRS had never heard of Zillow or Movoto?

Following is the taxpayers’ comment:

On September 24, 2021, petitioners acknowledged that this value did not reflect the actual fair market value of the personal residence, stating that ‘we always start low as the initial starting point of the negotiation.’”         

COMMENT: Again, it almost never works to play this game.

Here is the math for NRE:

FMV	680,816
	80%
Adjusted	544,653
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	233,776

                                          

 

 

The D’s argued that the $680,816 value for the house was ridiculous.

They had it appraised at $560,000.

The IRS said: OK. Even so, here is the NRE:              

FMV	560,000
	80%
Adjusted	448,000
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	137,123

The IRS of course determined the D’s could pay significantly more than their proposed offer. I want to stop our discussion here and go to our quiz question:

I have given you enough information to know the IRS would turn down their offer of $45,966. How do you know?

Go back and review how RCP is calculated.

It is the sum of realized assets and some multiple of income.

The offer was less than RCP.

In fact, it was less than the asset component of RCP.

Could it happen? Of course, but it would take exceptional circumstances: think elderly taxpayers, maybe severe if not terminal illness, the residence being the only meaningful asset, etc.

That is not what we have here.

So the D’s tried a gambit:

Petitioners propose that this Court find as fact their allegations that the SO was ‘hostile, irate [and] yelling’ and ‘not qualified to be impartial and honest in this case.’”

That might work. Must prove it though.

Jawboning the SO when gathering information does not seem like such a brilliant idea now.

Here is the Court:

Since the record before us (which we are bound by) is silent as to any of the SO’s alleged acts of impropriety or bias, we find this argument by petitioners to be unsubstantiated.”

Offer denied.

Our case this time was Dietz v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 203-69.

A Penalty Against A Tax Preparer

 

Did you know that the IRS can assess penalties against a tax preparer as well as a taxpayer?

I am looking at an IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum recommending a preparer be penalized for a deduction on a client return.

You do not see that every day.

Let’s talk about it.

As is our way, we will streamline the issue so that it is something you might want to read and something I might want to write.

A taxpayer accrued expenses on its books for customer early payment discounts and estimated write-offs for disputed billing and shipping charges.

Sure, easy for a CPA to say.

Let’s clarify. The company sold stuff. It allowed discounts if a customer paid early. It also had routine billing disputes – for quantity, quality, price, damage and so on. As part of its general accounting, it estimated these charges and recorded them as expenses when the related sale was recorded.

Makes sense to me. Generally accepted accounting wants one to record all related expenses when the sale is recorded. This is called the “timing principle,” and the idea is to present net profit from a sales transaction as well as reasonably possible. What if all the expenses are not known at that precise moment - say, for example - the amount of product that will be returned because of damage in shipping? Generally accepted accounting will allow one to estimate that number, normally by statistical analysis of historical experience.

BTW you better do this if you expect to have your financial statements audited. Part of an audit is a review of your accounting method, and the “estimate that number” described above is considered a best-of-breed.

Generally accepted accounting might not work when you get to your tax return, however. Why? Well, generally accepted accounting is trying to get to the “best” number in an economic sense. Tax accounting is not trying to get to the “best” number; rather, it is trying to measure your ability to pay. Pay what? Taxes, of course.

Let’s go back to our taxpayer. They estimated a bunch of expenses when they recorded a sale. They included those numbers on their financial statements. They then wanted to deduct those same numbers on their tax return.

Problem:

The taxpayer utilized statistics to record the expenses for the two items. The courts held that statistics were not a valid method to record the amounts.”

Their CPA firm had to review the accounting method and decide whether it was acceptable for tax purposes.

There is even a Code section and Regulations:

           Reg § 1.461-1. General rules for taxable year of deduction

(a)(2) Taxpayer using an accrual method.

(i) In general. Under an accrual method of accounting, a liability (as defined in §1.446-1(c)(1)(ii)(B)) is incurred, and generally is taken into account for Federal income tax purposes, in the taxable year in which all the events have occurred that establish the fact of the liability, the amount of the liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy, and economic performance has occurred with respect to the liability. 

 

You see that last sentence and its reference to “economic performance?”

 

For generally accepted accounting, one must:

        

·      Establish the fact of the liability.

·      Measure the amount of the liability with reasonable accuracy.

 

Tax then adds one more requirement:

        

·      Economic performance on the liability must have occurred.

 

That third requirement is what slows down the tax deduction.

 

What is an example of economic performance?

 

Say that you record expenses for services related to the sale. Economic performance wants to see those services performed before allowing the deduction. What if you know - because it has happened millions of times before and can be calculated with near-arithmetic certainty – that the services will occur? Tax doesn’t care.  

 

But the auditors signed-off on the financial statements, you say. Doesn’t that mean that experts agreed that the accounting method was valid?      

A taxpayer’s conformity with its accrual method used for financial accounting purposes does not create a presumption that its tax accrual method clearly reflects income.”

And there you have a brief introduction to why a company’s financial statements and its tax return might show different numbers. Financial statement accounting and tax accounting serve different purposes, and those differences have real-world consequences.

 

In this situation, I side with the IRS. Work in a CPA firm for any meaningful period and you will see tax people repetitively “tweak” the audit people’s numbers. It happens so often it has a term: “M-1.” Schedule M-1 is a tax schedule that reconciles the profit per the financial statements to the profit per the tax return. The possible list of differences is near endless:

 

·      Entertainment

·      Depreciation

·      Allowance for uncollectible receivables

·      Accrued bonuses

·      Reserve for warranties

·      Deferred rent

·      Controlled foreign corporation income

·      Opportunity zone income

 

And on and on. Knowing these differences is part of being a tax pro.

 

The Chief Counsel wanted to know why the tax pros at this particular CPA firm did not know that this generally accepted accounting method would not work for purposes of the tax return.

 

To be fair, methinks, because it is complicated …?

 

No dice, said the Counsel’s office. The preparer should have known.

 

The items deducted constituted a substantial part of the return. 

TRANSLATION: It was a big deduction.

And therefore the preparer penalty is appropriate.  

TRANSLATION: Someone has to pay.

Mind you, a Chief Counsel memorandum is internal to the IRS. The taxpayer – and by extension, its CPA firm – might appeal the matter to the Tax Court. I would expect them to, frankly. The memorandum is just the IRS’ side.

For the home gamers, today we have been discussing Chief Counsel Memorandum 20223301F.

 

Owing Partnership Tax As A Partner

 

We have wrapped-up (almost) another filing season here at Galactic Command. I include “almost” as we have nonprofit 990s due next month, but for the most part the heavy lifting is done.

Tax seasons 2020 and 2021 have been a real peach.

I am looking at a tax case that mirrors a conversation I was having with one of our CPAs two or three days ago. He was preparing a return for someone with significant partnership investments. The two I looked at are commonly described as “trader” partnerships.

The tax reporting for trader partnerships can be confusing, especially for younger practitioners. A normal investment partnership buys and sells stocks and securities, collects interest and dividends and has capital gains or losses along the way. The tax reporting shows interest and dividends and capital gains and losses – in short, it makes sense.

The trader partnership adds one more thing: it actively buys and sells stocks and securities as a business activity, so to speak. Think of it as a day trader as opposed to a long-term investor. The tax issue is that one has interest, dividends and capital gains and losses from the trader side as well as the nontrader side. The trader partnership separates the two, with the result that trading dividends (as an example) might be reported somewhere different on the Schedule K-1 from nontrading dividends. If you don’t know the theory, it doesn’t make sense.

The two partnerships pumped out meaningful taxable income.

What they did not do was pump out equivalent cash distributions. In fact, I would say that the partnerships distributed approximately enough cash to pay the taxes thereon, assuming that the partner was near the highest tax bracket.

The client had issues with the draft tax return.

Why?

There was no way he could have that much income as he did not receive that much cash.

And therein is a lesson in partnership taxation.

Let’s take a look at the Dodd case.

Dodd was the office manager at a D.C. law firm. The firm specialized in real estate and construction law.

She in turn became a 33.5% member in a partnership (Cadillac) transacting in – wait on it – the purchase, leasing and sale of real property. The other 66.5% partner was an attorney-partner in the law firm.

Routine so far.

Cadillac did well in 2013. Her share of gains from property sales was over a $1 million. Her cash distributions were approximately $200 grand.

Got it: 20 cents on the dollar.

When she prepared her individual return, she included that $1 million-plus gain as well as partnership losses. She owed around $170 grand with the return.

She did not send a check for the amount due.

The case has been bogged-down in tax procedure for several years. The IRS wanted its tax, and Dodd in turn requested Collections (CDP) hearings. We have had three rounds of back-and-forth, with the result that we are still talking about the case in 2021.

Her argument?

Simple. She had never received the $1 million. The money instead went to the bank to pay down a line of credit.

This is going to turn out badly for Dodd.

At 30 thousand feet, partnership taxation is relatively intuitive. A partnership does not pay taxes itself. Rather it files a tax return, and the partners in the partnership are allocated their share of the income and are themselves responsible for paying taxes on that share.

The complexity in partnership taxation comes primarily from how one allocates the income, as tax attorneys and CPAs have had decades to bend the rules.

Notice that I did not say anything about cash distributions.

Mind you, it is bad business to pump-out taxable income without distributing cash to cover the tax, but it is unlikely that a partnership will distribute cash exactly equal to its income. Why? Here are a couple of reasons that come immediately to mind:

·      Depreciation

The partnership buys something and depreciates it. It is likely that the depreciation (which follows tax rules) will not equal the cash payments for whatever was bought.

·      Debt

Any cash used to repay the bank is cash not available to distribute to the partners.

There is, by the way, a technique to discourage creditors of a partner from taking a partner’s partnership interest. Why would a creditor do this? To get to those distributions, of course.

There is a legal issue here, however. Let’s say that you, me and Lucy decided to form a partnership. Lucy has financial difficulties, and one of her creditors takes over her partnership interest. You and I did not form a partnership with Lucy’s creditor; we formed a partnership with Lucy. That creditor cannot just come in and force you and me to be partners with him/her. The best the creditor can do is get a “charging order,” which means the creditor receives only the right to Lucy’s distributions. The creditor cannot otherwise vote, demand the sale of assets or force the termination of the partnership.

What do you and I do in response to the new guy?

The creditor will have to report Lucy’s share of the partnership income, of course.

We in turn make no distributions to Lucy - or to the new guy. The partnership distributes to you and me, but that creditor is on his/her own. Sorry. Not. Go away.

As you can guess, creditors are not big fans of going after debtor partnership interests.

Back to Dodd.

What did the Court say?

No matter the reason for nondistribution, each partner must pay taxes on his distributive share.”

To restate:

Each partner is taxed on the its distributive share of partnership income without regard to whether the income is actually distributed.”

Dodd had no hope with this argument.

Maybe she would have better luck with her Collections appeal, but that is not the topic of our discussion this time.

We have been discussing Dodd v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-118.